G
- Status
S
seamusmohr
Guest
Maybe so, though not all, if any of the early fathers thought so!
***" there are among ancient authors some who interpret,’ on this rock,’ that is ‘on this faith,’ or,‘on this confession of faith in which thou hast called Me the Son of the living God’, as Hilary and Gregory Nyssen and Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria . S.Augustine, going still further away from the true sense, interprets ‘on this rock’, that is ‘on myself Christ, because Christ was the Rock’. But for Origen ’ on this rock, that is to say on all men who have the same faith.’" [Maldonatus, SJ. ]
Launoy another Jesuit, found that there are 17 early fathers in favour of the rock being Peter. Forty four for it meaning the faith Peter confessed; sixteen for it being Christ Himself whilst eight thought the Rock was all the apostles!" [Butler Handbook.pge 47.]
**
By the way, Sir Thomas More held the belief that the Pope was subserviant to the Council! Cambridge Hist. 1963.]
Primacy of place and honour is not disputed! They were given by the Councils the Church’s Magisterium! Therefore this is unassailable!
M
MoreCoffee
Guest
What’s the point of the OP? It looks like the author has a pet peeve and wanted to get something off his/her chest - venting a bit of spleen one might say.
The primacy of Peter is mentioned in scripture at Matthew 16:18-19. It is implied by the frequent use of Peter as the first name in most lists of apostles, and it is also implied by Peter acting as spokesman for the apostles. None of that necessarily implies jurisdiction in sees beyond the see of saint Peter but none of it precludes it. And yes, the doctrine of the primacy of Peter did develop; so what? The doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ developed, so did the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, and the Marian doctrines. Is there something bad about doctrinal development?
Epistemes, did you write the OP just to provoke people so you would get a busy thread?
Cheers
=====
PS: “exaggeration” & “exaggerated” not “exagerration” & “exagerrated”; there’s a helpful Firefox tool that spell checks the contents of edit boxes, if you are using a web browser to write your posts.
S
seamusmohr
Guest
S
seamusmohr
Guest
yes you should ! It will not help your case though until you show how Peter’s authority ended up on Victors shoulders.
You say yourself that .“He passed His authority on to His Apostles.” The Apostles in turn passed it on to the College of Bishops! The Bishop of Rome has no more authority than any other bishop within the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church unless it be given him by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. These latter are the magisterium of the Church!
I do not need to do that, I’m defending the norm within the early church ,the deposit of faith! The apostolic tradition! You are introducing the additions that go against the teachings of the Councils! The weight is on you and your friends to put up and prove your case!
M
MoreCoffee
Guest
What makes you think I read your comments? I wasn’t addressing your post (or posts) I addressed the OP.
J
jimmy
Guest
I would just like to point out that just because there isn’t any jurisdictional authority behind first among equals, that doesn’t make it meaningless. Even though the saints aren’t infallible in their theology or have jurisdictional authority over us, they do determine our outlook. We don’t look at the writings of the saints as just the opinions of a bunch of men who happened to be Christians. Their theology holds a certain reverence, and even though you might not be bound by them, they should bear a strong influence on your decisions.
J
jimmy
Guest
That isn’t accurate. The Orthodox don’t reject primacy. They accept that Rome may have had a primacy, but the question is what is the meaning of this primacy. Is it a primacy of honor? Or one of jurisdiction? The Eastern Orthodox would say of honor, and the west would say of jurisdiction.
S
seamusmohr
Guest
Your comments are quite interesting, you are right I had no reason to believe you read other posts on the same subject and the same thread.
J
jimmy
Guest
M
MoreCoffee
Guest
Then why didn’t you address my “interesting comments”? I don’t think it would be difficult for you to read them and draft a reply if you thought they were interesting enough.
The quote you included looked like a bit of catholic bashing which isn’t worth taking seriously. Do you have something constructive to say in reply to what I wrote? If not, thanks for you time
E
Epistemes
Guest
Commenting on the quote from the Epistle of St. Clement, Johannes Quasten, Catholic theologian and patristics scholar, states, “The Epistle…contains no categorical assertion of the primacy of the Roman See.” This, he says, “is undeniable.” Furthermore, “The writer nowhere states expressly that his intervention binds and obligates by law the Christian community of Corinth.” (Patrology I, 46)
If the primacy was of divine origin and the exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19 had been consistent throughout the apostolic and ante-Nicene Father, rather than originating with Tertullian centuries removed from Peter, then the Epistle of Clement would have expressed no hesitancy in its role to Corinth, as it expressly does.
Commenting on Irenaeus’ views of Roman primacy, Quasten states, “[W]hat is the meaning of the word ‘principalitas’? Unfortunately, the Latin words…can be used to translate quite a number of Greek words which differ considerably from one another.” Also, “Irenaeus attributes to the Church of Rome ‘a more efficient leadership’ than to any other Church. Moreover, he states that this Church of Rome, by being founded by Peter and Paul, by her episcopal succession, and by her doctrine, is a conclusive proof of the Christian faith.” Yet Irenaeus never asserts the jurisdictional primacy of Peter even though he had many opportunities to do such.
The Roman primacy Irenaeus refers to is a result of non-papal factors, such as the Roman church’s historical relationship with two prominent apostles, its familiarity to other churches, and probably its location in the capital of the empire. Irenaeus believed in a form of Roman primacy that doesn’t imply a divinely-appointed papacy.
S
simspt
Guest
I agree, it seems many have problems with the fact that there was development of Church government and the primacy of Peter. Why should this be a surprise?
M
mandateman
Guest
The importance of the Pope should not be underestimated. If the pope dies and the cardinals come together to elect a new pope and they took more then 3-6 months to accomplish it the church would cease to exist. If the pope were to become a heretic the church would cease to exist. The pope would of course be excommunicated ipso facto as a heretic but the church could not survive this act the pope and the church would cease to be authentically catholic.
The pope is not just infallible concerning the dogma he defines but he is protected by the same Holy Spirit from denial of any dogmatic truth. He cannot be infallible in defining truth if he is not infallible in understanding truth. Many saints who were asked to speculate concerning the legal result of the hypothetical situation of the pope being a heretic.
They all concluded that in canon law the pope couldn’t be declared a heretic because you become a heretic declaring the pope to be one. Second that not just the pope would cease being catholic but the church would be null and void with a complete break in apostolic succession.
Today we have hard line traditionalists who take the position of sedevacantism. This position though it can be defended by a purely theoretical position it is an impossible scenario. The pope cannot be a heretic and the church survive. To say the pope is a heretic is an attack on the infallibility of the pope and itself a heresy.
The pope is not just infallible concerning the dogma he defines but he is protected by the same Holy Spirit from denial of any dogmatic truth. He cannot be infallible in defining truth if he is not infallible in understanding truth. Many saints who were asked to speculate concerning the legal result of the hypothetical situation of the pope being a heretic.
They all concluded that in canon law the pope couldn’t be declared a heretic because you become a heretic declaring the pope to be one. Second that not just the pope would cease being catholic but the church would be null and void with a complete break in apostolic succession.
Today we have hard line traditionalists who take the position of sedevacantism. This position though it can be defended by a purely theoretical position it is an impossible scenario. The pope cannot be a heretic and the church survive. To say the pope is a heretic is an attack on the infallibility of the pope and itself a heresy.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Sorry jimmy that is not the consensus of the Early Church Fathers both Greek and latin Fathers. Your quote here, “The declaration of Peter is the essence of our faith” has nothing to do with Jesus building his Church upon Peter. You are introducing a whole new topic here separate from Jesus changing Simon’s name to Rock “Peter”.
The Fact that God in heaven revealed to Simo Bar Jona who Jesus was, is the sign given so that Jesus begins to build his Church upon the name and “Chair” of Peter (Cepha), never does Jesus build his Church upon Simon Bar Jona’s faith. How can Jesus build his Church upon Peter’s faith when Simon Bar Jona never proclaimed his faith after Jesus changed his name to Peter and endowed this new Peter with Power and the keys to the Kingdom of God. The only time you have Peter’s faith being revealed is when Jesus keeps rebuking him, and Peter denies Jesus 3 times. And you claim to have this faith of Peter which Jesus builds on? Sorry that does not work for me, nor does it work for the ECF’s.
And you are stating that Jesus built his Church upon Peter’s faith? You have forgotten that it was Simon Bar Jona faith before the Lord changed his “Character” life and consecrated it in Peter.
You apppear to be changing what Jesus has done which the ECF all acknowledge. Jesus did not build his Church upon Simons Faith this is wrong period. The Scriptures state Jesus built his church upon “Peter” not Simons faith. The building of Jesus Church begins after the name change from Simon to Peter. Jesus never builds his church upon Simon Bar Jona’s confessed faith, Jesus builds his church upon “Rock” Peter.
I will show you St.Cyprian quote of Matthew 16, and you show me an ECF teaching Jesus built his Church upon Simons faith;
St. Cyprian; On the unity of the Catholic Church chapt.4
“The Lord speaks to Peter” (not Simon bar Jona); “I say to you” He says, “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven” (Mt.16:16-18). Upon him, being one, He built HIs Church"…
Jesus begins building his Church upon Peter before his passion and resurrection. After the resurrection says St.Cyprian "He bestows equal power upon all the apostles, (never in single building his church as he did Peter, yet bestows equal power how? Listen to St. Cyprian reveal which equal power he relates this power to) and says, “As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Recieve the Holy Spirit:** If you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained”** (Jn.20:21) (continues ST. Cyprian) " that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one.
The following St. Cyprian continues his teaching of unity begins from one, and that all of Jesus disciples have been endowed with the office and power of Apostle just as Peter was given first singularly by Jesus. But this Apostleship does not come in building his Church, but is a continuation in unity with Peter (nothing here stated about Simon bar Jona faith) so as to be one, here is St. Cyprian.
"Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one"
I have only introduced one ECF teaching on unity of the Catholic Church and begins with Jesus building his Church upon Peter, never Simon bar Jona’s faith.
Now can you show me an ECF who teaches Jesus building his Church upon Simon bar Jona’s faith? and not “Peter” Rock. Or can you show me when Jesus builds his Church Upon Peter’s faith supported by an ECF?
I eagerly await your reply. I don’t find any Early Church Father teaching Jesus built his church upon Simon Bar Jona’s faith who proclaimed Jesus is the “Son of God”. Please recall it is Matthew recalling this event and recording it in his gospel. So Matthew already knows Simon’s name has been changed to Cephas.
P.S Jesus asked Simon bar Jona “who do you say that I am”? Jesus never asked Peter this question.
Peace be with you
[/quote]
L
losh14
Guest
Provided it was a dispute at the time. I do think it was the correct interpretation, though I think we ought to look at where it was first applied.
It may have been argued against by heretical or dissident groups, whose arguments are of little import to us today because they are the errant ones. This may explain some of the appeal made by Irenaeus and others - though I think the stronger doctrinal exhortations on the Eucharist, the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity point to what the early fathers saw as far more important issues.
It strikes me that Primacy was used as a type of rhetoric called ‘appeal to authority’. Peter, along with the other Apostles, were revered and honored in early Christianity, and naturally so. Many of the regional churches not only claimed to have been started by one of the Apostles (hence, the Mar Thoma) but also claimed to hold their relics.
It’s not difficult to see that Peter held, at least in Scriptural times, a position of high authority. Peter was the undisputed leader of the early Church - Paul doesn’t even make an appearance until Acts 13, and by the time Paul and Peter butt heads in Galatians, at least 20 years have passed. Thus Peter’s primacy would have been undisputed - the nature of the arguments made by the early Christian fathers then were along the lines of WHO followed in Peter’s stead?
Now if Peter’s primacy was undisputed but not as important at the time as other issues, that would explain why it gets some writing but not as much treatment as other topics. Fast-forward a few centuries when the role of the Church has taken on political dimensions - the Roman Empire has collapsed and the Bishop is often the only judge, organizer of militia, central authority for welfare and assistance, etc. Political power has a tendency to centralize - this is not a bad thing by any stretch, in fact it is quite necessary. Dissipating power depletes resources because there is inefficient management. Centralizing power allows for better economic management as well as better resolution of conflicts, standardization of personnel, etc. But I wont’ go into my Peter Drucker here …
Point being, the argument of Primacy took on a different purpose during Christendom, that of exercising political authority - something which we may frown on today but we must remember that if you weren’t subject to a Bishop, you were subject to a warlord. These were medieval times when medieval men made medieval decisions. Life was nasty brutish and short, and often the only justice a warlord faced was the threat of excommunication. If he was a believer, he feared for his soul, and even if he didn’t he feared for his life because excommunication lifted the ban on military action against the excommunicated. A terrible thing, by modern standards, but the only way to reign in a renegade warlord.
Today, of course, the tenor of debate is much different. Following the Restorationist movement (America, 19th century) we now have a number of denominations claiming themselves to exhort authentic, original 1st century Christianity. This is a claim that the Reformers did not make (though many were fond of Augustine because of his Systemic Theology) but Americans who are often ignorant of history were fond of doing. Thus the Primacy argument becomes an appeal to history. Despite the writings in Acts, the modern perception is that Peter is a wimp - where do you think we get this from? Likewise, where do you think Americans get bar jokes about Peter at the pearly gates? Anyway …
So point is, the Primacy argument has changed in purpose and therefore in focus (though not in meaning) over time, from:
- Appeal to authority that was commonly respected, to:
- Justification for centralized governance, to:
- Appeal to historical claim
N
Nicea325
Guest
Well of course church government developed over time.Is not the church a living organism? Like all living organisms,it must take time to develop. Jesus did not say: Okay here it is all nicely set up for you.
However,the fact it needed to develop does not negate the fact it was in existence. Not understood in the way it is understood today,but certainly in its infancy stages.
F
fnr
Guest
Here’s Irenaeus.
Seems to me: Roman primacy + apostolic succession = important.
However, there is lack of reference to Matthew 16 as the basis of papal authority, per se, until 256 (when Pope Stephen interdicted the declaration of invalid heretical baptism by Cyprian of Carthage). Even in Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, it doesn’t appear.
There’s another angle here, which is the role of the bishop in the metropolitan church. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, points to the necessity of a monarchical bishop. However, it’s unclear that the Antioch structure was shared, for instance, in Smyrna, from where Polycarp wrote. That’s during the second century.
Even earlier, the Didache (ca. 50-120) speaks of two types of hierarchies…
First, bishops and deacons
Second, it exhorts:
It seems consistent with evidence to suggest that first, when the Church was its youngest, it had a variety of organizational schemes, including a “mobile ministry,” and was spread through the hinterlands. Over time, Christianity increasingly focused on Mediterranean cities (e.g., Paul’s correspondents). The urban churches organized under bishops, while rural Christians were more served by roving preachers. Eventually, the urban/rural split came to a head during the Montanist “pentecostalism” crisis, which originated in rural Asia minor. A lack of authority structure in the rural areas made it hard to adjudicate – even Tertullian joined the Montanists, believing their message.
The Montanists highlighted an authority vacuum outside cities, and the ongoing North African church’s independent-mindedness amidst gnostic heresies were problematic to maintaining apostolic traditions. Rome asserted primacy. Previously, the universal esteem of Peter AND Paul was enough, but by 256, respect didn’t convince the other large metropolitan churches (all within the Catholic Church). Pope Stephen invoked Matthew 16, and in so doing, reoriented the whole visible Church along monarchist lines (just a few decades prior to Nicea).
There’s some corroborating evidence for this progression in changing themes in Christian architecture. Before around 200, Christians were persecuted (no buildings). However, between the 3rd and 5th centuries, Roman catacomb adornment and church art reflect a change in the depiction of the “Tratitio clavium” and “Tratitio Legis,” the handing on of scrolls and keys to Peter and Paul. Some earlier depictions show Christ giving Peter keys and Paul a scroll. The joint Peter/Paul motif disappears in later years with, Christ is depicted handing the scroll of law or keys to the kingdom to Peter alone. I’m not an art historian, so anyone who is, please clarify!
Vatican 2 seems to strongly re-emphasize the collegiality of the bishops and the pope.
However, fearing conciliarism
eek: Constance!), the curia and conservative bishops pushed to have included a “Preliminary Note of Explanation,” which seems to be the enormous loophole that has allowed subsequent popes to ignore the documents of the council, while playing up its “spirit.”
N
Nicea325
Guest
True,but your statement is not accurate either. You are giving a more modern position as to what primacy meant…supposedly in the ancient church.However, the belief in the very early church from what I studied was not a matter of honor or jurisdiction. If it a question of honor,then why would eastern bishops even bother to take appeals to Rome to be settled? Why would a bishop with honor from another separate diocese/region need be the one to settle disputes,especially doctrinal ones?
I do not accept the notion it was a question of honor or jurisdiction.
C
CDNowak
Guest
And what of Iraneaus, before him? He mentions the primacy of Rome (“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”) founded on the primacy of Peter and Paul (“by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul”).
He claims uncertainty due to translation, and that there is no mention of jurisdiction (how then does he explain that “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church”?) Contrary to the claim of your favored interpreter (as you said, interpretation is a major issue, so let’s actually discus the primary source, not dismiss it based on some third party nearly two millennia after the Apostles), this one passage does seem to imply a universal jurisdiction over doctrine.
Tertullian is not even one century removed from the apostles (John died c. 100, Tertullian was writing c. 185). If we wish to deal in history, treading close to the line of antiquarianism, then let us do so honestly.
- Status